Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Raminder Kaur vs Gurudayal Singh on 30 March, 2009

                              1

           THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
             ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - V,
         DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
                  ROHINI COURTS, DELHI


                                  Criminal Appeal No.13/08
                             in Complaint Case No.80/01/07
                             Police Station : Rajouri Garden



Raminder Kaur
W/o. Late Sh. Harbhajan Singh
R/o. WZ-3, Malabar Garden,
(Near M-54), Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027.                        ............Appellant

                           Versus


1.   Gurudayal Singh
     S/o. Sh. Amar Singh,
     R/O. WZ-3, Malabar Garden,
     (Near M-54), Rajouri Garden,
     New Delhi-110027.

2.   Kamaljit Singh
     S/o. Sh. Gurudayal Singh
     R/O. WZ-3, Malabar Garden,
     (Near M-54), Rajouri Garden,
     New Delhi-110027.                ........... Respondents



Date of Institution                  :      24.10.07
Date of institution in this Court    :      01.12.08
Arguments heard On                   :      28.03.09
Order Announced On                   :      30.03.09




                                                   Contin...pg. 2
                                  2

JUDGMENT :

1. An appeal under section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 preferred against the order dated 22.09.07 passed by learned M.M. Ms. Barkha Gupta, Rohini Courts, Delhi.

2. The facts in nutshell are that appellant is a widow lady of late Sh. Harbhajan Singh. She had been residing in two rooms, one on the first floor and second on the ground floor at premises no. WZ-3, Malabar Garden (Near M-54, Rajouri Garden) since the year March, 1981. In the year 2006, respondents demolished the room at the ground floor, disconnected electricity connection and water connection and also deprived the entry and exit from the main gate of the premises.

3. In the petition, appellant prayed for protection order under section 18, residence order under section 19 with prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay monetary relief under section 20. Appellant further prayed that a prohibition order may be made from alienation of assets by Gurdayal Singh and committing domestic violence. The appellant further prayed for restraining respondents from disconnecting electricity and water supply and stopping construction of stairs, bath room, toilet and Contin...pg. 3 3 wall. She further prayed for getting no objection from respondents for having new electricity and water connection. Appellant further claimed monetary relief of Rs. 1 Lakh losses due to destruction and damages along with Rs.30,000/- physical and mental injury received and litigation expenses Rs.20,000/-.

4. The appellant filed two complaints dated 06.05.06 and June, 2006 sent to PS Rajouri Garden and SDM. She also annexed electricity bill in the name of Harbhajan Singh, copy of ration card and proceedings before the Mediation Cell.

5. Respondent Gurdayal Singh and Kamaljit Singh filed reply and denied all the allegations levelled against them. They stated that after the marriage of the appellant with the deceased husband and son of respondent no. 1 Gurdayal Singh, they started residing separately. In the year 1998 due to the attitude of the appellant, husband committed suicide. However, prior to that appellant had already left the matrimonial home at her own and never remained in touch. Respondents filed on record copy of suicide note. They state that the room at the ground floor was demolished by MCD as it was on government land and appellant never resided in the room. Both respondents further filed letter Contin...pg. 4 4 dated 11.05.07 issued by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Saheb, Delhi.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sh. S.P. Singh Mann and Sh. Sharad Nagpal, counsel for respondents and perused the record.

7. The impugned order of learned trial court challenged on the ground that learned trial court erred in restraining matrimonial home only to one room at first floor whereas one on the ground floor was also part of matrimonial home since 1981. The other contention raised that the learned trial court erred in rejecting the monetary relief of Rs.1 Lakh due to damage and loss and destruction of the room at the ground floor and Rs.30,000/- compensation not awarded along with Rs. 2 Lakhs compensation for defamation.

8. Respondents counsel submits that the appeal is not maintainable. The appellant had never resided in the alleged matrimonial home and never in possession of two rooms as alleged. He pointed that a letter issued by Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee dated 11.05.07 clearly mentions that earlier she was residing at Ranjit Nagar. He submits that there is Contin...pg. 5 5 no provision of granting of monetary benefits as prayed in the appeal. Therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed. He relied on the judgment of S.R. Batra & Another Vs. Taruna Batra in Civil Appeal No.5837/2006 Supreme Court.

9. I have gone through the impugned order of learned trial court dated 22.09.07, the trial court referred to the proceedings dated 10.01.07 and before Counseller, Patiala House Courts wherein there is a specific observation that one room and one kitchen is in the possession of appellant at the first floor. The letter dated 11.05.07 as per observation of learned trial court shows that appellant was residing at Jeet Darbar, Ranjit Nagar and working as UDC at Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, Rakab Ganj. The learned trial court rightly concluded that electricity bill 2007 also shows a consumption of 210 units.

10. Learned trial court correctly held that appellant is in possession of one room and kitchen at the first floor at WZ-3, Malbar Garden, Rajouri Garden and since appellant had shifted from that house and hence there is no question of domestic violence by respondent no. 1 and 2. The material on record further supports the findings of trial court that there is no dispute between the parties prior to May, 2006. The trial court impugned Contin...pg. 6 6 order is based upon logical conclusion on the basis of contentions of the parties and documents filed on record. I find no incorrectness, impropriety or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.09.07. Hence, appeal is dismissed. Trial court record shall be sent back. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court today (SANJAY KUMAR) 30.03.09. Addl. Sessions Judge-V North-West, Rohini, Delhi.

Contin...pg.